Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
6 edited body
source | link

This may seem like a silly question, but I believe this to be very fundamental because the Standard Model of particle physics seems based on the axiom or assumption that neutrons and protons exist “as-is” inside atomic nuclei.

Why else would the standard model require a strong nuclear force to hold everything together?

Surely there must be more evidence that this is the case besides the fact that neutrons and protons appear when a nucleus is smashed ?

EDIT: It has been a long time since I asked this question, and looking at it now (dec 5 2017) it seems like I have not mentioned an important reason for asking this question. In any case, this is what I want to add to the question now:

Take for example the Helium nucleus which is postulated to consist four separate hadronsbaryons that need to be kept together with the strong force in the standard model. I would expect that in that case the total mass of a Helium nucleus would be at least that of the 4 individual hadronsbaryons added together, and then I would expect to have to add more mass because of binding energy of the strong force.

Instead, the mass of the Helium nucleus is less than the four individual hadronsbaryons combined. Isn’t that evidence that the Helium nucleus cannot consist of four separate “as-is” hadronsbaryons?

And if that is the case, what is the evidence that these, what I would call “reduced”, hadronsbaryons still require a strong force to be kept together? I mean, these hadronsbaryons have lost some mass in the process of fusing together in a Helium nucleus which means they have changed somehow. Then I wonder, what if this change also changes the repulsive forces between them into attractive forces for example while retaining all the other particle specific characteristics? Would that not be a more elegant explanation than a strong nuclear force?

I mean, it would not change a thing in the released energy levels when fusing two protons and two neutrons together. The only thing that changes is the model. A model that seems just as compatible with the data as the model with a strong nuclear force.

This may seem like a silly question, but I believe this to be very fundamental because the Standard Model of particle physics seems based on the axiom or assumption that neutrons and protons exist “as-is” inside atomic nuclei.

Why else would the standard model require a strong nuclear force to hold everything together?

Surely there must be more evidence that this is the case besides the fact that neutrons and protons appear when a nucleus is smashed ?

EDIT: It has been a long time since I asked this question, and looking at it now (dec 5 2017) it seems like I have not mentioned an important reason for asking this question. In any case, this is what I want to add to the question now:

Take for example the Helium nucleus which is postulated to consist four separate hadrons that need to be kept together with the strong force in the standard model. I would expect that in that case the total mass of a Helium nucleus would be at least that of the 4 individual hadrons added together, and then I would expect to have to add more mass because of binding energy of the strong force.

Instead, the mass of the Helium nucleus is less than the four individual hadrons combined. Isn’t that evidence that the Helium nucleus cannot consist of four separate “as-is” hadrons?

And if that is the case, what is the evidence that these, what I would call “reduced”, hadrons still require a strong force to be kept together? I mean, these hadrons have lost some mass in the process of fusing together in a Helium nucleus which means they have changed somehow. Then I wonder, what if this change also changes the repulsive forces between them into attractive forces for example while retaining all the other particle specific characteristics? Would that not be a more elegant explanation than a strong nuclear force?

I mean, it would not change a thing in the released energy levels when fusing two protons and two neutrons together. The only thing that changes is the model. A model that seems just as compatible with the data as the model with a strong nuclear force.

This may seem like a silly question, but I believe this to be very fundamental because the Standard Model of particle physics seems based on the axiom or assumption that neutrons and protons exist “as-is” inside atomic nuclei.

Why else would the standard model require a strong nuclear force to hold everything together?

Surely there must be more evidence that this is the case besides the fact that neutrons and protons appear when a nucleus is smashed ?

EDIT: It has been a long time since I asked this question, and looking at it now (dec 5 2017) it seems like I have not mentioned an important reason for asking this question. In any case, this is what I want to add to the question now:

Take for example the Helium nucleus which is postulated to consist four separate baryons that need to be kept together with the strong force in the standard model. I would expect that in that case the total mass of a Helium nucleus would be at least that of the 4 individual baryons added together, and then I would expect to have to add more mass because of binding energy of the strong force.

Instead, the mass of the Helium nucleus is less than the four individual baryons combined. Isn’t that evidence that the Helium nucleus cannot consist of four separate “as-is” baryons?

And if that is the case, what is the evidence that these, what I would call “reduced”, baryons still require a strong force to be kept together? I mean, these baryons have lost some mass in the process of fusing together in a Helium nucleus which means they have changed somehow. Then I wonder, what if this change also changes the repulsive forces between them into attractive forces for example while retaining all the other particle specific characteristics? Would that not be a more elegant explanation than a strong nuclear force?

I mean, it would not change a thing in the released energy levels when fusing two protons and two neutrons together. The only thing that changes is the model. A model that seems just as compatible with the data as the model with a strong nuclear force.

5 added 1613 characters in body
source | link

This may seem like a silly question, but I believe this to be very fundamental because the Standard Model of particle physics seems based on the axiom or assumption that neutrons and protons exist “as-is” inside atomic nuclei.

Why else would the standard model require a strong nuclear force to hold everything together?

Surely there must be more evidence that this is the case besides the fact that neutrons and protons appear when a nucleus is smashed ?

EDIT: It has been a long time since I asked this question, and looking at it now (dec 5 2017) it seems like I have not mentioned an important reason for asking this question. In any case, this is what I want to add to the question now:

Take for example the Helium nucleus which is postulated to consist four separate hadrons that need to be kept together with the strong force in the standard model. I would expect that in that case the total mass of a Helium nucleus would be at least that of the 4 individual hadrons added together, and then I would expect to have to add more mass because of binding energy of the strong force.

Instead, the mass of the Helium nucleus is less than the four individual hadrons combined. Isn’t that evidence that the Helium nucleus cannot consist of four separate “as-is” hadrons?

And if that is the case, what is the evidence that these, what I would call “reduced”, hadrons still require a strong force to be kept together? I mean, these hadrons have lost some mass in the process of fusing together in a Helium nucleus which means they have changed somehow. Then I wonder, what if this change also changes the repulsive forces between them into attractive forces for example while retaining all the other particle specific characteristics? Would that not be a more elegant explanation than a strong nuclear force?

I mean, it would not change a thing in the released energy levels when fusing two protons and two neutrons together. The only thing that changes is the model. A model that seems just as compatible with the data as the model with a strong nuclear force.

This may seem like a silly question, but I believe this to be very fundamental because the Standard Model of particle physics seems based on the axiom or assumption that neutrons and protons exist “as-is” inside atomic nuclei.

Why else would the standard model require a strong nuclear force to hold everything together?

Surely there must be more evidence that this is the case besides the fact that neutrons and protons appear when a nucleus is smashed ?

This may seem like a silly question, but I believe this to be very fundamental because the Standard Model of particle physics seems based on the axiom or assumption that neutrons and protons exist “as-is” inside atomic nuclei.

Why else would the standard model require a strong nuclear force to hold everything together?

Surely there must be more evidence that this is the case besides the fact that neutrons and protons appear when a nucleus is smashed ?

EDIT: It has been a long time since I asked this question, and looking at it now (dec 5 2017) it seems like I have not mentioned an important reason for asking this question. In any case, this is what I want to add to the question now:

Take for example the Helium nucleus which is postulated to consist four separate hadrons that need to be kept together with the strong force in the standard model. I would expect that in that case the total mass of a Helium nucleus would be at least that of the 4 individual hadrons added together, and then I would expect to have to add more mass because of binding energy of the strong force.

Instead, the mass of the Helium nucleus is less than the four individual hadrons combined. Isn’t that evidence that the Helium nucleus cannot consist of four separate “as-is” hadrons?

And if that is the case, what is the evidence that these, what I would call “reduced”, hadrons still require a strong force to be kept together? I mean, these hadrons have lost some mass in the process of fusing together in a Helium nucleus which means they have changed somehow. Then I wonder, what if this change also changes the repulsive forces between them into attractive forces for example while retaining all the other particle specific characteristics? Would that not be a more elegant explanation than a strong nuclear force?

I mean, it would not change a thing in the released energy levels when fusing two protons and two neutrons together. The only thing that changes is the model. A model that seems just as compatible with the data as the model with a strong nuclear force.

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/579035025531932672
4 edited tags
| link
3 shortened title + removed "EDIT" etc, edits can be seen in history
source | link
2 added 100 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link